are they recreating the Maginot line in the pacific? (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: Yesterday 1:03:39 PM EDT
China has been at this for years and Vietnam is getting in on it. In the day of GPS guided munitions having a large fixed asset that sits on unstable ground sounds like a bad strategy that is ignorant of history. Am I missing something?  China Just Built Another Island in the South China Sea... |
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
|
First off, GPS guidance isn't a given on the modern battlefield. Second, you can't sink an island. Third, land based ASGMs do not take up as much space as you'd think, but they can have a much longer range than ship borne missiles. There are trade-offs, logistics mostly. The US is reactivating WW2 airstrips all around the Pacific and looking into expeditionary / forward basing arrangements for the Army and Marines to set up exactly the same kind of things on small islands around naval choke points. |
Life is about choices.
If you make a mistake once, it's a mistake.
You make the same mistake again, that's a choice.
If you make a mistake once, it's a mistake.
You make the same mistake again, that's a choice.
|
Originally Posted By redoubt: First off, GPS guidance isn't a given on the modern battlefield. Second, you can't sink an island. Third, land based ASGMs do not take up as much space as you'd think, but they can have a much longer range than ship borne missiles. There are trade-offs, logistics mostly. The US is reactivating WW2 airstrips all around the Pacific and looking into expeditionary / forward basing arrangements for the Army and Marines to set up exactly the same kind of things on small islands around naval choke points. We can sure try to sink an island 
|
|
Bombs are dropped from aircraft which can be shot down. It's difficult to approach an island in the middle of the ocean without being seen, stealth is of limited use. Jamming GPS is also trivially easy, it's standard practice in conflicts worldwide now. The chinese islands aren't just about physical control, they are a place to put intelligence collection and early warning hardware. The land is chinese territory so we won't attack it unless unrestrained war with china breaks out. So it's a great idea from the chinese perspective. |
|
Originally Posted By redoubt: First off, GPS guidance isn't a given on the modern battlefield. Second, you can't sink an island. Third, land based ASGMs do not take up as much space as you'd think, but they can have a much longer range than ship borne missiles. There are trade-offs, logistics mostly. The US is reactivating WW2 airstrips all around the Pacific and looking into expeditionary / forward basing arrangements for the Army and Marines to set up exactly the same kind of things on small islands around naval choke points. 
|
Live your life as you would wish to have lived, when you come to die. Confucius
When words lose their meaning, a people can move neither hand nor foot. Confucius
When words lose their meaning, a people can move neither hand nor foot. Confucius
Decadence is no longer morally acceptable.
Joined:
Jan 2014
Posts:
43550
EE: 100% (6)
ID, USA
|
All the preparations for a war with China are amusing to me. Especially since so many seem to expect that it will be some kind of fucked up combination of WW2 and the occupation of Iraq which will drag on for centuries. As opposed to a series of escalations that take, at most six months. Which ends with all of mainland China sterilized by nuclear fire and a decent sized chunk of the US in a similar state. |
Exaggerate the essential, leave the obvious vague.
|
Originally Posted By redoubt: First off, GPS guidance isn't a given on the modern battlefield. Second, you can't sink an island. Third, land based ASGMs do not take up as much space as you'd think, but they can have a much longer range than ship borne missiles. There are trade-offs, logistics mostly. The US is reactivating WW2 airstrips all around the Pacific and looking into expeditionary / forward basing arrangements for the Army and Marines to set up exactly the same kind of things on small islands around naval choke points. According to the guy in the video the islands sink on their own without application of explosives.  Those US bases from my understanding are on real islands not stacked sand and are more about mobile missile launchers for anti ship operations not fixed storage, but maybe I missed something |
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
| Well we havent exactly been sitting still either, since we're reactivating some of the old WW2 island airstrips |
*post contains personal opinion only and should not be considered information released in an official capacity*
0110001101101100011010010110001101101011
0110001101101100011010010110001101101011
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
9371
EE: 0% (0)
MI, USA
|
Originally Posted By nightstalker: Wow, that will be very attractive as a duty station! Originally Posted By nightstalker: Originally Posted By redoubt: First off, GPS guidance isn't a given on the modern battlefield. Second, you can't sink an island. Third, land based ASGMs do not take up as much space as you'd think, but they can have a much longer range than ship borne missiles. There are trade-offs, logistics mostly. The US is reactivating WW2 airstrips all around the Pacific and looking into expeditionary / forward basing arrangements for the Army and Marines to set up exactly the same kind of things on small islands around naval choke points.  At best they're a deterrence, at worst you fight a delaying action and hope big Navy and Army show up quickly to help. At least its warm
|
When the going gets tough, the tough go cyclic.
|
Originally Posted By Hesperus: All the preparations for a war with China are amusing to me. Especially since so many seem to expect that it will be some kind of fucked up combination of WW2 and the occupation of Iraq which will drag on for centuries. As opposed to a series of escalations that take, at most six months. Which ends with all of mainland China sterilized by nuclear fire and a decent sized chunk of the US in a similar state. They’re gonna nuke the Democrat cities. Wonder what our MIC will hit? Probably the cities that are against the globohomo “rules based global order”. |
mene mene tekel upharsin
That others may think
That others may think
|
Originally Posted By redoubt: First off, GPS guidance isn't a given on the modern battlefield. Second, you can't sink an island. Third, land based ASGMs do not take up as much space as you'd think, but they can have a much longer range than ship borne missiles. There are trade-offs, logistics mostly. The US is reactivating WW2 airstrips all around the Pacific and looking into expeditionary / forward basing arrangements for the Army and Marines to set up exactly the same kind of things on small islands around naval choke points. Listen, I'm no military strategist, but we can for sure make islands even with sea level again
|
"Oh, bother," said Pooh, as he pulled the pin on another grenade...
|
Originally Posted By 2tired2run: According to the guy in the video the islands sink on their own without application of explosives. Those US bases from my understanding are on real islands not stacked sand and are more about mobile missile launchers for anti ship operations not fixed storage, but maybe I missed something Originally Posted By 2tired2run: Originally Posted By redoubt: First off, GPS guidance isn't a given on the modern battlefield. Second, you can't sink an island. Third, land based ASGMs do not take up as much space as you'd think, but they can have a much longer range than ship borne missiles. There are trade-offs, logistics mostly. The US is reactivating WW2 airstrips all around the Pacific and looking into expeditionary / forward basing arrangements for the Army and Marines to set up exactly the same kind of things on small islands around naval choke points. According to the guy in the video the islands sink on their own without application of explosives. Those US bases from my understanding are on real islands not stacked sand and are more about mobile missile launchers for anti ship operations not fixed storage, but maybe I missed something |
"The state is not the solution. It is the problem." --Javier Milei
"If this is how the state treats its law-abiding citizens, it doesn't deserve to have any"
--Solzhenitsyn
"If this is how the state treats its law-abiding citizens, it doesn't deserve to have any"
--Solzhenitsyn
|
Originally Posted By redoubt: First off, GPS guidance isn't a given on the modern battlefield. Second, you can't sink an island. Third, land based ASGMs do not take up as much space as you'd think, but they can have a much longer range than ship borne missiles. There are trade-offs, logistics mostly. The US is reactivating WW2 airstrips all around the Pacific and looking into expeditionary / forward basing arrangements for the Army and Marines to set up exactly the same kind of things on small islands around naval choke points. You can for sure sink this island. They just dredged all the fill to it last year. |
|
Originally Posted By redoubt: Second, you can't sink an island. While technically islands, those are really little more than built up reefs. A couple good cyclones could render them inop. If they did solid concrete from the volcanic stone they might last without constant maintenance, but looked like they just piled dredged up coral and sand slurry and poured concrete on top. Some of the early ones look like they are already deteriorating rapidly. We went through with this Johnson Atoll in WWII and the Cold War. Take a look at that now. All but taken over by nature. It's a maintenance nightmare to keep something like that operational. These are built on sand and coral that collected on volcano rims that just barely reached the oceans surface, as opposed to volcanic islands that reached 10 to 1000 feet above the surface. |
"Once Open AI is good enough we will ask it to find a way to become profitable."
- Sam Altman
- Sam Altman
We are the Knights who say Fuuuuu!
Joined:
Sep 2004
Posts:
59071
EE: 100% (665)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By nightstalker: Wow, that will be very attractive as a duty station! The Philippines drove a rusted out old WW2 LST up onto the coral at Spratley Reef to "claim" it as "their" territory. Ripped whatever hadn't rusted away. Hull is open to the sea. Attached File Attached File Talk about a "choice duty station" . Stuck on a derelict wrecked ship far from land ...  Pray a cyclone doesn't come, because if one does ☠️ Bigger_Hammer  |
LIFE'S JOURNEY IS NOT TO ARRIVE AT THE GRAVE SAFELY IN A WELL PRESERVED BODY,
BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS, TOTALLY WORN OUT SHOUTING "HOLY $H!T...WHAT A RIDE"!!
BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS, TOTALLY WORN OUT SHOUTING "HOLY $H!T...WHAT A RIDE"!!
|
Originally Posted By _DR: While technically islands, those are really little more than built up reefs. A couple good cyclones could render them inop. If they did solid concrete from the volcanic stone they might last without constant maintenance, but looked like they just piled dredged up coral and sand slurry and poured concrete on top. Some of the early ones look like they are already deteriorating rapidly. We went through with this Johnson Atoll in WWII and the Cold War. Take a look at that now. All but taken over by nature. It's a maintenance nightmare to keep something like that operational. These are built on sand and coral that collected on volcano rims that just barely reached the oceans surface, as opposed to volcanic islands that reached 10 to 1000 feet above the surface. Originally Posted By _DR: Originally Posted By redoubt: Second, you can't sink an island. While technically islands, those are really little more than built up reefs. A couple good cyclones could render them inop. If they did solid concrete from the volcanic stone they might last without constant maintenance, but looked like they just piled dredged up coral and sand slurry and poured concrete on top. Some of the early ones look like they are already deteriorating rapidly. We went through with this Johnson Atoll in WWII and the Cold War. Take a look at that now. All but taken over by nature. It's a maintenance nightmare to keep something like that operational. These are built on sand and coral that collected on volcano rims that just barely reached the oceans surface, as opposed to volcanic islands that reached 10 to 1000 feet above the surface. The problem with Johnston Atoll was the UXO dump and the radioactivity from a failed missile launch. |
“America is a whorehouse where the revolutionary ideals of your forefathers are corrupted and sold in alleys by vendors of capitalism.”
|
Originally Posted By Southernman077: The problem with Johnston Atoll was the UXO dump and the radioactivity from a failed missile launch. I though they did some low yield nuke tests too. |
"Once Open AI is good enough we will ask it to find a way to become profitable."
- Sam Altman
- Sam Altman
|
Originally Posted By Bigger_Hammer: The Philippines drove a rusted out old WW2 LST up onto the coral at Spratley Reef to "claim" it as "their" territory. Ripped whatever hadn't rusted away. Hull is open to the sea. Talk about a "choice duty station" . Stuck on a derelict wrecked ship far from land ... Pray a cyclone doesn't come, because if one does ☠️ Bigger_Hammer I watched a YouTube video on that LST outpost a while back. They keep a couple of squads of Filipino marines on that wreck 24/7/365. They only rotate something like once a month. It looked about as bad as you could imagine. Limited water, limited food, no electricity, no R&R. I am sure most prisons would be preferable. 
|
Our idea of a rough TDY was if the hotel did not have a swimming pool.
We are the Knights who say Fuuuuu!
Joined:
Sep 2004
Posts:
59074
EE: 100% (665)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By Southernman077: The problem with Johnston Atoll was the UXO dump and the radioactivity from a failed missile launch. Originally Posted By Southernman077: The problem with Johnston Atoll was the UXO dump and the radioactivity from a failed missile launch. Originally Posted By _DR: I though they did some low yield nuke tests too. Tests were supposed to be high altitude, but they had multiple failures with the Thor IRBMs, including put plutonium all over the pad. The famous high altitude / space "Star Fish Prime" test was fired from Johnson & EMP affected systems in Hawaii 600+ miles away. The test latter wrecked several satellites in orbit as it left a highly radioactive area that cooked the electronics of early satellites include the first Tel-Star ... Bigger_Hammer
|
LIFE'S JOURNEY IS NOT TO ARRIVE AT THE GRAVE SAFELY IN A WELL PRESERVED BODY,
BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS, TOTALLY WORN OUT SHOUTING "HOLY $H!T...WHAT A RIDE"!!
BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS, TOTALLY WORN OUT SHOUTING "HOLY $H!T...WHAT A RIDE"!!
|
Originally Posted By _DR: I though they did some low yield nuke tests too. Originally Posted By _DR: Originally Posted By Southernman077: The problem with Johnston Atoll was the UXO dump and the radioactivity from a failed missile launch. I though they did some low yield nuke tests too. They used the place for a long time. They burned up the last of our chemical weapons stockpile there. |
“America is a whorehouse where the revolutionary ideals of your forefathers are corrupted and sold in alleys by vendors of capitalism.”
|
Originally Posted By Slufstuff: I watched a YouTube video on that LST outpost a while back. They keep a couple of squads of Filipino marines on that wreck 24/7/365. They only rotate something like once a month. It looked about as bad as you could imagine. Limited water, limited food, no electricity, no R&R. I am sure most prisons would be preferable. Originally Posted By Slufstuff: Originally Posted By Bigger_Hammer: The Philippines drove a rusted out old WW2 LST up onto the coral at Spratley Reef to "claim" it as "their" territory. Ripped whatever hadn't rusted away. Hull is open to the sea. Talk about a "choice duty station" . Stuck on a derelict wrecked ship far from land ... Pray a cyclone doesn't come, because if one does ☠️ Bigger_Hammer I watched a YouTube video on that LST outpost a while back. They keep a couple of squads of Filipino marines on that wreck 24/7/365. They only rotate something like once a month. It looked about as bad as you could imagine. Limited water, limited food, no electricity, no R&R. I am sure most prisons would be preferable. There is great fishing there I would bet. |
“America is a whorehouse where the revolutionary ideals of your forefathers are corrupted and sold in alleys by vendors of capitalism.”
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
12171
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Friendly reminder that the Maginot Line did PRECISELY what it was designed to do. It forced the Germans to go through the Low Countries. What the French military planners failed to do was acknowledge how fast you could shove a few army groups through that intentionally built gap. The Germans did not break the Line from the front. |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
|
Originally Posted By redoubt: First off, GPS guidance isn't a given on the modern battlefield. Second, you can't sink an island. Third, land based ASGMs do not take up as much space as you'd think, but they can have a much longer range than ship borne missiles. There are trade-offs, logistics mostly. The US is reactivating WW2 airstrips all around the Pacific and looking into expeditionary / forward basing arrangements for the Army and Marines to set up exactly the same kind of things on small islands around naval choke points. Idk Guam almost tipped over once |
We are the Knights who say Fuuuuu!
Joined:
Sep 2004
Posts:
59075
EE: 100% (665)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By Slufstuff: I watched a YouTube video on that LST outpost a while back. They keep a couple of squads of Filipino marines on that wreck 24/7/365. They only rotate something like once a month. It looked about as bad as you could imagine. Limited water, limited food, no electricity, no R&R. I am sure most prisons would be preferable. Originally Posted By Slufstuff: Originally Posted By Bigger_Hammer: The Philippines drove a rusted out old WW2 LST up onto the coral at Spratley Reef to "claim" it as "their" territory. Ripped whatever hadn't rusted away. Hull is open to the sea. Talk about a "choice duty station" . Stuck on a derelict wrecked ship far from land ... Pray a cyclone doesn't come, because if one does ☠️ Bigger_Hammer I watched a YouTube video on that LST outpost a while back. They keep a couple of squads of Filipino marines on that wreck 24/7/365. They only rotate something like once a month. It looked about as bad as you could imagine. Limited water, limited food, no electricity, no R&R. I am sure most prisons would be preferable. If you were in an actual prison and a typoon hit - you would 99.87% survive. If you were on that wrecked hulk stuck on a reef with a wrecked & rusted through hull and a typhoon hit - you would 99.87% die Bigger_Hammer
|
LIFE'S JOURNEY IS NOT TO ARRIVE AT THE GRAVE SAFELY IN A WELL PRESERVED BODY,
BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS, TOTALLY WORN OUT SHOUTING "HOLY $H!T...WHAT A RIDE"!!
BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS, TOTALLY WORN OUT SHOUTING "HOLY $H!T...WHAT A RIDE"!!
|
Originally Posted By 0311SKI: https://media1.giphy.com/media/B2l0NnxK9KiVa0CXBh/200.webp?cid=8dc8958c3usjmepq0mjcw3x1fhdowoq72ah5r3t78thtxvha&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.webp&ct=g At best they're a deterrence, at worst you fight a delaying action and hope big Navy and Army show up quickly to help. At least its warm |
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Friendly reminder that the Maginot Line did PRECISELY what it was designed to do. It forced the Germans to go through the Low Countries. What the French military planners failed to do was acknowledge how fast you could shove a few army groups through that intentionally built gap. The Germans did not break the Line from the front. The forts made the Germans build some gigantic artillery and mortars. It was totally worth it! 
|
“America is a whorehouse where the revolutionary ideals of your forefathers are corrupted and sold in alleys by vendors of capitalism.”
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Friendly reminder that the Maginot Line did PRECISELY what it was designed to do. It forced the Germans to go through the Low Countries. What the French military planners failed to do was acknowledge how fast you could shove a few army groups through that intentionally built gap. The Germans did not break the Line from the front. Yeah but in doing so they nullified maginot line, making it a waste. While not an identical situation I think the end result is potentially the same. A large investment wasted with little impact on the outcome. |
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
We are the Knights who say Fuuuuu!
Joined:
Sep 2004
Posts:
59076
EE: 100% (665)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Friendly reminder that the Maginot Line did PRECISELY what it was designed to do. It forced the Germans to go through the Low Countries. What the French military planners failed to do was acknowledge how fast you could shove a few army groups through that intentionally built gap. The Germans did not break the Line from the front. The Germans went through the Low Countries to draw the BEF & best French units North. Then the Germans launched Blitzkrieg with an Armor Panzer thrust through the Ardennes to cut off the BEF & French army. Dunkirk & the defeat of Franch resulted. Hummm. German Panzer Surprise Attack in a quiet sector like the Ardennes ... Sounds ...familiar ... somehow ... 🤔 Bigger_Hammer
|
LIFE'S JOURNEY IS NOT TO ARRIVE AT THE GRAVE SAFELY IN A WELL PRESERVED BODY,
BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS, TOTALLY WORN OUT SHOUTING "HOLY $H!T...WHAT A RIDE"!!
BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS, TOTALLY WORN OUT SHOUTING "HOLY $H!T...WHAT A RIDE"!!
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
12172
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By 2tired2run: Yeah but in doing so they nullified maginot line, making it a waste. While not an identical situation I think the end result is potentially the same. A large investment wasted with little impact on the outcome. Originally Posted By 2tired2run: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Friendly reminder that the Maginot Line did PRECISELY what it was designed to do. It forced the Germans to go through the Low Countries. What the French military planners failed to do was acknowledge how fast you could shove a few army groups through that intentionally built gap. The Germans did not break the Line from the front. Yeah but in doing so they nullified maginot line, making it a waste. While not an identical situation I think the end result is potentially the same. A large investment wasted with little impact on the outcome. If it played no factor, when why didn't the Germans just drive in a straight line to Paris? Why go through the Low Countries? |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
Joined:
Aug 2024
Posts:
4277
EE: 0% (0)
KS, USA
|
Originally Posted By Hesperus: All the preparations for a war with China are amusing to me. Especially since so many seem to expect that it will be some kind of fucked up combination of WW2 and the occupation of Iraq which will drag on for centuries. As opposed to a series of escalations that take, at most six months. Which ends with all of mainland China sterilized by nuclear fire and a decent sized chunk of the US in a similar state. Why not save the nukes and sterilize China with a biblical flood (Three Gorges Dam)? @Hesperus |
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
12173
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By CapedCrusader: Why not save the nukes and sterilize China with a biblical flood (Three Gorges Dam)? @Hesperus Originally Posted By CapedCrusader: Originally Posted By Hesperus: All the preparations for a war with China are amusing to me. Especially since so many seem to expect that it will be some kind of fucked up combination of WW2 and the occupation of Iraq which will drag on for centuries. As opposed to a series of escalations that take, at most six months. Which ends with all of mainland China sterilized by nuclear fire and a decent sized chunk of the US in a similar state. Why not save the nukes and sterilize China with a biblical flood (Three Gorges Dam)? @Hesperus Annihilating middle China means nothing to the Han core in the Northeast. They barely consider those in the flood zone to be Chinese. |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
Decadence is no longer morally acceptable.
Joined:
Jan 2014
Posts:
43556
EE: 100% (6)
ID, USA
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Annihilating middle China means nothing to the Han core in the Northeast. They barely consider those in the flood zone to be Chinese. Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By CapedCrusader: Originally Posted By Hesperus: All the preparations for a war with China are amusing to me. Especially since so many seem to expect that it will be some kind of fucked up combination of WW2 and the occupation of Iraq which will drag on for centuries. As opposed to a series of escalations that take, at most six months. Which ends with all of mainland China sterilized by nuclear fire and a decent sized chunk of the US in a similar state. Why not save the nukes and sterilize China with a biblical flood (Three Gorges Dam)? @Hesperus Annihilating middle China means nothing to the Han core in the Northeast. They barely consider those in the flood zone to be Chinese. To use very technical terms, the flood zone doesn’t encompass enough stuff to really call the communist government into question. The communists have been digging in there for a long time, depending on your source. They may have a lot, I mean a lot, a lot of nuclear armed ballistic missiles hidden in vast mountain bunker complexes. Barring some weapons with capabilities well beyond what the US government admits we have. I don’t see us being able to completely burn them out, no matter how hard we hit them. Doesn’t mean I’m opposed to giving it the ol’ college try. |
Exaggerate the essential, leave the obvious vague.
|
Until there is an actual war, right up until that point, those islands give the dog-eaters extension of their control and military access and influence of the oceans they claim. The way they play the long game, destroy from within, there never will be a war and the strategic weaknesses of the islands won't materialize. |
Mercy on the criminal is cruelty to the innocent.
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
12176
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Evil_Ed: Listen, I'm no military strategist, but we can for sure make islands even with sea level again Originally Posted By Evil_Ed: Originally Posted By redoubt: First off, GPS guidance isn't a given on the modern battlefield. Second, you can't sink an island. Third, land based ASGMs do not take up as much space as you'd think, but they can have a much longer range than ship borne missiles. There are trade-offs, logistics mostly. The US is reactivating WW2 airstrips all around the Pacific and looking into expeditionary / forward basing arrangements for the Army and Marines to set up exactly the same kind of things on small islands around naval choke points. Listen, I'm no military strategist, but we can for sure make islands even with sea level again 
|
|
I dont think its a Maginot Line, more like property markers... they militarized them against their own word on the subject to intimidate the little fish in the area. Perhaps they have some early warning value, but those reefs will be junk first day and there's no hope of resupply. Chicoms are just peeing on the fence line hoping that convinces everyone of ownership. |
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: If it played no factor, when why didn't the Germans just drive in a straight line to Paris? Why go through the Low Countries? Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By 2tired2run: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Friendly reminder that the Maginot Line did PRECISELY what it was designed to do. It forced the Germans to go through the Low Countries. What the French military planners failed to do was acknowledge how fast you could shove a few army groups through that intentionally built gap. The Germans did not break the Line from the front. Yeah but in doing so they nullified maginot line, making it a waste. While not an identical situation I think the end result is potentially the same. A large investment wasted with little impact on the outcome. If it played no factor, when why didn't the Germans just drive in a straight line to Paris? Why go through the Low Countries? If the goal was to divert invaders sure it worked, if the goal was to prevent invasion well i stand by large investment with little impact on the outcome. Same result here if china wants to protect it's trade routes i doubt these are much use. We can go around hit them from a distance we know where they are its not like they can move them quickly. Domestic protection i guess maybe they might be useful but these days no one I can think of is really interested in invading china. |
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
|
Originally Posted By RR_Broccoli: Until there is an actual war, right up until that point, those islands give the dog-eaters extension of their control and military access and influence of the oceans they claim. The way they play the long game, destroy from within, there never will be a war and the strategic weaknesses of the islands won't materialize. Good point, their current tactic to push right up to the line of armed conflict but not cross it is another part of this. |
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
12179
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By 2tired2run: If the goal was to divert invaders sure it worked, if the goal was to prevent invasion well i stand by large investment with little impact on the outcome. Same result here if china wants to protect it's trade routes i doubt these are much use. We can go around hit them from a distance we know where they are its not like they can move them quickly. Domestic protection i guess maybe they might be useful but these days no one I can think of is really interested in invading china. Originally Posted By 2tired2run: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By 2tired2run: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Friendly reminder that the Maginot Line did PRECISELY what it was designed to do. It forced the Germans to go through the Low Countries. What the French military planners failed to do was acknowledge how fast you could shove a few army groups through that intentionally built gap. The Germans did not break the Line from the front. Yeah but in doing so they nullified maginot line, making it a waste. While not an identical situation I think the end result is potentially the same. A large investment wasted with little impact on the outcome. If it played no factor, when why didn't the Germans just drive in a straight line to Paris? Why go through the Low Countries? If the goal was to divert invaders sure it worked, if the goal was to prevent invasion well i stand by large investment with little impact on the outcome. Same result here if china wants to protect it's trade routes i doubt these are much use. We can go around hit them from a distance we know where they are its not like they can move them quickly. Domestic protection i guess maybe they might be useful but these days no one I can think of is really interested in invading china. We'll have to separate my areas of knowledge. I don't know shit about fuck when it comes to drone production. But the Maginot Line created the outcome that it was explicitly designed to do. To force Germany to go around it. That's literally why it existed. If you don't believe me, then ask the people who designed it. |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.